Look at me! I'm an artiste!

[Brogarn]

Bah! Kill Bill was awesome.

[schild]

Bah! Kill Bill was awesome.

It was pretty much shit.

Anyway, I can't believe we're talking about fucking Tarantino again.

Also, is your avatar Flint?

[Brogarn]

It was pretty much shit.

I, of course, completely disagree.

Also, is your avatar Flint?

It's one of the Dwarf avatars from BG.

[Merusk]

Kill Bill has its moments.  As a whole it bores me, but I'll queue up some of the fight scenes to watch them from time to time.

[Velorath]

you can't write an "original" story around those constants?

Tarantino has never been about "original" writing.

[Signe]

Most of his films have had brief moments of  .  Unfortunately, they are surrounded by long periods of monotony.  Still, I almost always rent his films when they come out but sometimes I don't make it to the end.

[stray]

Death Proof rocked on the action scale. Then again, I'm a sucker for car crashes and clanking metal.

The writing? Not so much -- but he has his moments.

[Endie]

Death Proof rocked on the action scale. Then again, I'm a sucker for car crashes and clanking metal.

The writing? Not so much -- but he has his moments.

I thought his writing on True Romance was great, although obviously it is one long homage. mainly to Badlands.  And the writing on Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction was brilliant in places, and pretty good throughout.

It's his acting that is appalling.  Destiny Turns on the Radio  .  Four Rooms (his writing on his section too, I admit).  Dusk Til Dawn.  Pulp Fiction.  Ack.  I admit that his little speech at the beginning of Reservoir Dogs is good, but he's not really acting there.

[stray]

Thing is, Roger Avary helped him write True Romance/Pulp Fiction (Reservoir was it's own work, I believe). In fact, parts of them supposedly were all part of one long script they were working on (along with the story for Natural Born Killers). The really good dialogue, otoh, shit like Quentin's Madonna speech that you're talking about -- that was all Avary. The Butch episode in Pulp (the best episode) was all Avary. Anything that makes reference to France (Royale with Cheese) is Avary.

But Tarantino is a entertaining director. I don't care if it's overtly derivative or not -- most stuff is. And he just happens to derive from things I like to keep seeing.

[Velorath]

Death Proof rocked on the action scale. Then again, I'm a sucker for car crashes and clanking metal.

The writing? Not so much -- but he has his moments.

I thought his writing on True Romance was great, although obviously it is one long homage. mainly to Badlands.

I like his movies, but they are pretty much all made up of homages to other movies.  Take a look at this article on Kill Bill for instance.

[schild]

The only good thing Tarantino did was the 20 minutes or so he wrote in Four Rooms. Everything else is shlocky ripoff crap. Also, calling all of his work a series of homages really discredits the word homage. You can get away with one in a lifetime. Maybe two. But all of them? That makes you an unoriginal yutz who deserves the cruelest of fates.

[Margalis]

My problem with Kill Bill wasn't that it was largely homage, I'm fine with that. I just didn't think it was very good overall. No emotional or character depth (across two whole movies) and the action, while cool, was nothing that knocked my socks off.

And given that there was no depth of story and no characterization it was way too long.

[Nebu]

The only good thing Tarantino did was the 20 minutes or so he wrote in Four Rooms.

... and even that was the third best of the four stories (The whole witch thing being the worst).  God, I loved Four Rooms. 

[Signe]

Speaking of "homages"...

The other day Righ was watching something on one of the music channels and I asked what it was and he said, "it's a homage to The Who."  So I sat down to watch and it seemed to be The Who doing the homaging.  Uh, I don't know who was playing before that but the last half hour or what ever it was that I watched was all The Who doing The Who.  What the hell kind of Who homage is that?!?

[stray]

I guess since both Entwistle and Moon are gone, it can't be called the Who anymore. Hence, it's just Townsend and Daltrey paying tribute.

Hell, it could barely be called the Who even with just Moon gone for the past 20+ years.

[Sky]

They've been blitzing Who stuff lately, which is pretty cool. I love Classic Albums, where they have artists or engineers sit at the mixer with the master and pull faders up or down to highlight what they're talking about. Hearing the Ox thunder through a line is amazing, isolating Moonie is face-melting.

Saw one thing where Pearl Jam did a respectable job of a couple songs, but it really highlights how bands like the Who and Zep were so strong at every position. Jeff Ament played it very boring and uncreatively (imo, I've said elsewhere I'm hard on bassists). I mean, he hit the high parts pretty much the way they were recorded, but Entwistle kicked out the mufu'in JAMS on that song when he played it and there are some spots where Ox would've been jamming that Ament just sits on the root, boo. Veddie did a good job on Love Reign O'er Me, since it's a damned hard song to sing...but I'm spoiled by watching Ann Wilson do the definitive version live last year from the fifth row. The whole audience was in shock, it was so perfect.

[stray]

Yes, Eddie is a big Who fan, and KILLS Love Reign. I think it's better than the original honestly. The first time I heard the recorded version, I cried. Never heard Ann sing it -- gotta check it out now!

[apocrypha]

My problem with Kill Bill wasn't that it was largely homage, I'm fine with that. I just didn't think it was very good overall. No emotional or character depth (across two whole movies) and the action, while cool, was nothing that knocked my socks off.

And given that there was no depth of story and no characterization it was way too long.

I think the way to look at Kill Bill is as a series of music videos strung together, not as an actual film.

And personally I think a remake of Attack of the 50ft Woman is something that should be considered for Britney. Really.

[stray]

Writing wise, yes, Quentin sucks. I even think some of the small bits of brilliance in his recent movies were probably leftovers from something Avary said (my theory at least). Y'know, like the Superman reference in Kill Bill. They just stick out like a sore thumb.

But he's a good director. And there are few, if any, directors that aren't paying homage to the past, photographically/cinematographically speaking. All of the big pioneers were in the silent era and a little beyond. Whether it's a subtle pan, or the use of the steady cam, someone's paying homage. And Tarantino takes a lot of good elements from the past. He's the film geek du jour. A sucky director is probably one who ISN'T paying homage to something at this point -- y'know, a completely random/thoughtless director.

He also has an excellent taste in garage bin music -- along with a feel for tapping into the potential of washed up/forgotten/unknown actors. Especially Robert Forster, Sonny Chiba, and Michael Parks. Sam Jackson wasn't an obvious before bet before Pulp, and even Bruce Willis wasn't doing shit -- but that film made Sam infinitely cool, and reminded everyone how cool Bruce was. The only person I wished Quentin didn't unleash on us is Travolta (even if he was good as Vincent).

[Endie]

But he's a good director. And there are few, if any, directors that aren't paying homage to the past, photographically/cinematographically speaking. All of the big pioneers were in the silent era and a little beyond.

I don't know if you're extending "just beyond" the silent period a long way, but Welles just straight-up invented whole shots.  And even later, you had a revolution in styles after Garrett Brown invented the Steadicam.  With reference to that, you then get the whole shakycam style.  There has also been a lot of inventive work done in television drama in the last fifteen years or so, particularly with single camera setups.

I can't remember the first director to use dolly zooms, but it was around the time of Hitchcock, who really popularised it in Vertigo.  In fact, Hitchcock pretty much invented (or nicked from cameramen!) several techniques.

[stray]

But he's a good director. And there are few, if any, directors that aren't paying homage to the past, photographically/cinematographically speaking. All of the big pioneers were in the silent era and a little beyond.

I don't know if you're extending "just beyond" the silent period a long way, but Welles just straight-up invented whole shots.  And even later, you had a revolution in styles after Garrett Brown invented the Steadicam.  With reference to that, you then get the whole shakycam style.  There has also been a lot of inventive work done in television drama in the last fifteen years or so, particularly with single camera setups.

I can't remember the first director to use dolly zooms, but it was around the time of Hitchcock, who really popularised it in Vertigo.  In fact, Hitchcock pretty much invented (or nicked from cameramen!) several techniques.

No, Welles is there, as is Hitchcock. Not just the silent era (sorry for sounding like I meant only that). People who really didn't have much to draw upon, and explored the possibilities of a (then) new artform -- most of the shit that's everywhere now, but we all take for granted. Granted, there's later things like the steadicam. Shaky cam -- not so much. It's got one application really. Shakyness. Almost always relegated to fight or intense action scenes. I mean, that's innovative, but not exactly revolutionary. Hell, Gonzo Porn might be more revolutionary. 

Revolutionary to me would be some perspective/means/tools/effects that can be applied in many ways. An "eye" that can be used for many different types of scenes (if that makes sense?).

[edit] Anyhow, as far as Tarantino goes, what I meant was, like Scorsese, he knows who are the model examples of scene types and techniques, has a good sense on how to get maximum effect, and steals these things. Shamelessly. Not a big deal to me though. I wish more people did this.

[HaemishM]

you can't write an "original" story around those constants?

Tarantino has never been about "original" writing.

Sure. But by original story in Kill Bill's case, I do mean an actual story. Kill Bill wasn't a story, it was shitty, over the top Monty-Python-esque fight scenes barely worthy of a MadTV skit. The dialogue was forced and unimaginative, the direction was pedestrian and making it two movies was a ripoff and a crime.

[Margalis]

This is a pretty interesting discussion.

One of my favorite directors is John Carpenter, and it's generally recognized that a lot of his work is patterned off of Howard Hawks. For example Assault on Precient 13 being a "remake" of Rio Bravo. Even the way he titles his films "John Carpenter's X" is based on Hawks. But it never feels like he is aping Hawks. Watching Hawks' films doesn't cheapen the experience, if anything it makes it more enjoyable because while some of the themes may be similar they stand up on their own.

I feel that with some of Tarantino's stuff the more familiar you are with the source material the less impressive the work becomes. Like the Hollywood remakes of Japanese horror films, the more you know about the originals the less you care about the Americanized versions. For example the stuff from Kill Bill 2 where Uma is training with the old guy. It didn't have a unique spin or anything to differentiate it from a hundred similar Asian movies.

I don't mind when directors pay homage or even lift entire sequences wholesale, especially if it's out of love for the original. But Kill Bill was a simple amalgamation of previous movies without much to differentiate it.

I like Tarantino to some degree but following Kill Bill with Death Proof is a little too backward-looking for my taste.

[stray]

I like Tarantino to some degree but following Kill Bill with Death Proof is a little too backward-looking for my taste.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Can you clarify?

I'd agree about Kill Bill. It was a lot of aping. Some of it was cool though.

Anyhow, to me, Death Proof actually stands out as subtle in it's "aping". Which is ironic. I mean, the premise of Grindhouse was supposed to be an overt homage to 70's schlock cinema, but he offered something where he wasn't "chatting up" his influences too much, nor paying homage to that genre completely. It's fairly dry on that level. He's borrowing certain archetypes and some stuntwork (otoh, having Zoe Bell function as both a cast member and a stunt member brought some brand new stunt shots never seen before..just by virtue of him being able to do closeups on her), but for the most part, he's just applying his general knowledge about action movies, isn't trying to be too cute with it, and it turned out to be simple fun in the end (imo).

Writing wise, it wasn't anything special, except for the ending. I like the idea of a monster getting completely castrated and the shit kicked out of him by girls. Everyone wants to see that -- yet... It rarely happens. Monsters usually put up a good fight.

[Margalis]

I like Tarantino to some degree but following Kill Bill with Death Proof is a little too backward-looking for my taste.

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Can you clarify?

The whole idea of Grindhouse was to pay homage to grindhouse theater, and a large portion of Death Proof was focused on knob-polishing Vanishing Point. I don't think Death Proof is guilty of too directly copying older films but the whole concept is purposely derivative. If you count Kill Bill as two different films that's three movies in a row that are rooted firmly in the past and conceived largely as homage to earlier film genres.

I did think the ending of Death Proof was great. The last 2 minutes of it were the best 2 minutes of Grindhouse hand's down.

[Riggswolfe]

I don't know if you're extending "just beyond" the silent period a long way, but Welles just straight-up invented whole shots.  And even later, you had a revolution in styles after Garrett Brown invented the Steadicam.  With reference to that, you then get the whole shakycam style. 

Shakycam is not a fucking style. It's a lazy anti-style. It's used to cover shitty fight choreography and is lazy directing by people who want to be artsy. It has singlehandedly made some action movies unwatchable shit (like the last 2 Bourne movies, I'll watch Uwe Bowell before I give that hack Greengrass any of my money.)

Can you tell my vitriol for shakycam approaches Schild levels of Tarantino hate?

[Endie]

I don't know if you're extending "just beyond" the silent period a long way, but Welles just straight-up invented whole shots.  And even later, you had a revolution in styles after Garrett Brown invented the Steadicam.  With reference to that, you then get the whole shakycam style. 

Shakycam is not a fucking style. It's a lazy anti-style. It's used to cover shitty fight choreography and is lazy directing by people who want to be artsy. It has singlehandedly made some action movies unwatchable shit (like the last 2 Bourne movies, I'll watch Uwe Bowell before I give that hack Greengrass any of my money.)

Can you tell my vitriol for shakycam approaches Schild levels of Tarantino hate?

OK, so you don't like it.  But when Kubrick used it in Dr Strangelove (and it is a huge contrast from what Kubrick normally does) it was innovative, ground-breaking and exciting.  Yes, lots of people then copied it, did it to excess or (post-Brown) made it ubiquitous.  But a good director can still use it well.  And some of the most effective use has been done on television, often coupled with the long take technique, often by Zoic.  It just needs to be sparingly, and done with a light touch.

Edit: verbs are not adverbs.

[Riggswolfe]

It just needs to be sparingly, and done with a light touch.

I'll concede this much. Used sparingly I can tolerate it.

[schild]

Like in Pitch Black.

[stu]

Don't forget that Tarantino helped spawn Natural Born Killers, which turned out to be one of Oliver Stone's better flicks.

Part of the problem Tarantino has is that he fails to translate things he believes are cool into things the audience sees as cool. A big issue he had with Death Proof was that viewers felt he was being campy when he was actually attempting to be serious & hip.

Here's a snippet from an interview he did which granted me a lot of insight into how off base he can be sometimes:

Because you reference films of the past, where you're deliberately doing slightly hokey things

I disagree with that!

Well, maybe I'm wrong

I'm not saying you are wrong. But I'm disagreeing with the way you keep wording it because if I'm trying to do a remembrance of the films of the past, the slasher film is a legitimate subgenre in horror film. Well that sounds a lot different to making a reference to films of the past.

But there was a feeling about Grindhouse that it was nostalgic and when you look back at, say, Russ Meyer's films, there is a slight hokiness to them

Let me address that 100 per cent because I don't think there was any hokeyness in Death Proof when I wrote it. If you are thinking that some moment is cheesy or some moment is hokey, I didn't mean it to be that way. But here's my point though. What you are referring to isn't any of the material inside of the movie or anything that happens inside the movie, it's just the print. That's all it is. It's a Godardian thing. We can argue that slasher films aren't a proper genre.

No, I just meant hokey in conventional terms of what is or isn't regarded as good acting.

Well, if anyone thinks what I put in there was bad acting, I didn't mean to.

full interview here:  http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49432 Worth the read.

[schild]

But I lost my stamina in the last quarter of the last lap of Jackie Brown and part of the reason was I wasn't taking something I created from scratch from a blank piece of paper and turning it into a full project.

This motherfucker has never written an original thing in his life. Why would anyone ever listen to him? Yea, it's worth reading if you want more reasons to Kamnap him, drop him in China and get him addicted to heroin and have him work out his life in a shoe-sole factory.

[stray]

A big issue he had with Death Proof was that viewers felt he was being campy when he was actually attempting to be serious & hip.

Actually.. That touches on the point that I mentioned above -- that I thought that Death Proof, while homage, was dry in a way. It really was kind of a serious movie. That's what I found ironic about it. I see what Quentin is saying.

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, that's probably his most realistic flick (not to say it was Kramer vs Kramer or anything...just that it was more plausible and less self-aware than anything else he's done).

Also, there are probably more guys out there who resemble Stuntman Mike than Jules, Mr. Blonde, or Ordell. Yeah, it's wrapped in a whole Vanishing Point myth thing, but the basic story is a realistic one: Crazy psychopath who kills pretty girls with his car. Fair enough. He gets scared when they fight back. Fair too. There are probably many would be serial killers like that. It's even more realistic than Jackie Brown -- which, while grounded in some believable situations, is cartoony just because of Ordell alone.

The girls of Death Proof as well -- they're all fairly realistic characters (I mean, the craziest one of the bunch is Zoe... and she's just playing an exaggerated version of herself). The only one that comes across as hokey and a typical "Tarantino" type of character is Jungle Julia. His characters have that thing about them...y'know...like how every word they utter, they've got that jive where they're performing everything to the audience and shit (instead of in spite of the audience)? She's the only one like that.

[stu]

I can't stand Jungle Julia characters. When I went to see Death Proof, we left the theater because Jungle Julia wouldn't stop talking like an idiot. I get the feeling that Tarantino can be pretentious sometimes and it just bleeds out in his dialogue. Why would I pay to be talked down to? I like Tarantino, but some of the stuff he does makes me scatch my head. If it wasn't for Robert Rodriguez, he'd be harder pressed to find work.

[stray]

I think Robert R is the same actually. Not a great writer, but a great director.

That said, if I had a million dollars, I'd find his house in Austin, and he'd be the first person I gave it to.

[photek]

Pulp Fiction.